Author
Topic: Picking Cain's Brains (Read 23338 times)

I have a specific case you can pm me about Cain, if you're interested in the specifics but I won't ask it publically because there's elements told to me in confidence...

But I'm curious; what do you know about the Japanese S/M scene and the nature of the connections it has to activities of the Yakuza.

Logged

If sheep entrails could in any way be related to the weather, i.e. sheep trails only originate where it rains, then you could use it as an accurate model for discerning what the weathers going to be like. Either, sheep shit makes it rain, or raining makes sheep shit. Sheep don't shit "randomly" sheep shit after they eat, it doesn't rain "randomly" it rains after water collects in the atmosphere.

Not much. I would assume, much like everywhere else, organised crime caters to extreme tastes that could not be legally acquired. Given the Yakuza reputation, for extreme body art, cutting off little finger's etc I imagine those tastes would be quite extreme indeed. And given the Yakuza penetration of the business world, excellent blackmail material also.

a) How likely is a Republican victory in the 2012 US presidential election?b) Of the candidates on show which, in your estimation is the least insane?c) Of the candidates, who do you think is the most likely nominee? (sanity/otherwise not withstanding)

PS Thank you for commentary on Iran. You confirmed my suspicion of 'he talks a good game but, so far, hasn't done anything much'.

Why the FUCK do people like Ron Paul? Is he really that good of a gerrymanderer? Or is that much of American stupid?

Hugs and Kisses,

Suu

In one definition, it means selling yourself to the opposition in attempts to get more votes. Especially by using buzzwords and telling people what they want to hear. Otherwise, it has more to do with changing political boundaries, again, to steal votes. (We're dealing with it in RI now.)

Ron Paul is full of shit. He's a Republican, same as the other Republicans, he just calls himself a Libertarian to sound better.

Why the FUCK do people like Ron Paul? Is he really that good of a gerrymanderer? Or is that much of American stupid?

Hugs and Kisses,

Suu

Bits of both, and some other stuff.

Paul essentially appeals to both radical antiwar Democrats who have realised their own party is a corporatist owned death machine, and to left wing Democrats and really libertarian Republicans who want to end the War on Drugs.

There are large constituencies for both positions, however they are almost entirely unrepresented within American politics. I believe a good 40-something % of the population buy into isolationist rhetoric of the kind Ron Paul sells, and a similar amount believe the War on Drugs has been a terrible strain on the judicial service and civil liberties.

However, there are also structural reasons for why Ron Paul can articulate such a position. He's essentially Congressman-for-Life in his district - he will hold his seat until the day he dies. Because he does not have to worry unduly about re-election, he can take positions which are unpopular with his party without suffering negative consequences.

Above and beyond all that though, what Ron Paul does is offer a simple, easy to understand and rhetorically palatable solution to Americans of the political problems of the moment. That these solutions are wrong, and will not work, is irrelevant. The appeal is almost religious in nature, and so rational argument has little effect here. Paul is a "Crazy Eddie" with a bit of power and a secure position.

He will never ascend to the Presidency though. Even if he did, you'd see the largest pushback and bipartisan consensus ever in Congress that the President must be undermined. It would be hilarious, but brief. Fucking with the profits of the military-industrial-congressional complex (people always leave out the last one, despite it being in the original draft of Eisenhower's speech) is not a move which will contribute to one's health.

a) How likely is a Republican victory in the 2012 US presidential election?b) Of the candidates on show which, in your estimation is the least insane?c) Of the candidates, who do you think is the most likely nominee? (sanity/otherwise not withstanding)

PS Thank you for commentary on Iran. You confirmed my suspicion of 'he talks a good game but, so far, hasn't done anything much'.

a) if they pick anyone but Romney, they have not got a chance in hell. If they do eventually wise up and pick the Magic Underpants Candidate, I give him roughly 47% chance of success - Obama currently leads him in the polls, but not by much. The economy could worsen in the meantime, or there could be pushback against Romney by the religious right - either way, it will be very close and the only real advantage Obama may have is being the incumbent.

b) Huntsman, followed by Romney. Romney's still pretty mad, but his madness is that of the Beltway Consensus, and so most people wont notice. Huntsman is mostly sane, as you would expect of someone who would be sent to China as Ambassador, but he has made a few...odd statements here and there. And is committed to nuking the shit out of Iran, if necessary, which is not necessarily the judgement of a sound mind (the argument goes...."Iranians are a people repressed by a small theocratic elite, yearning for freedom, but if that theocratic elite do the wrong thing, we have no problem killing millions of Iranian people to teach them a lesson").

c) it's a two horse race at the moment, between Romney and Gingrinch. The Democrats really want the latter to win, as they know he's so utterly divisive that they can easily beat him, and the polls seem to support that. People who have worked with Gingrinch despise him, no-one in the party with any clout is looking to endorse him...his surge will probably fizzle out as the party elite reluctantly rally around Romney next year.

a) How likely is a Republican victory in the 2012 US presidential election?b) Of the candidates on show which, in your estimation is the least insane?c) Of the candidates, who do you think is the most likely nominee? (sanity/otherwise not withstanding)

PS Thank you for commentary on Iran. You confirmed my suspicion of 'he talks a good game but, so far, hasn't done anything much'.

a) if they pick anyone but Romney, they have not got a chance in hell. If they do eventually wise up and pick the Magic Underpants Candidate, I give him roughly 47% chance of success - Obama currently leads him in the polls, but not by much. The economy could worsen in the meantime, or there could be pushback against Romney by the religious right - either way, it will be very close and the only real advantage Obama may have is being the incumbent.

b) Huntsman, followed by Romney. Romney's still pretty mad, but his madness is that of the Beltway Consensus, and so most people wont notice. Huntsman is mostly sane, as you would expect of someone who would be sent to China as Ambassador, but he has made a few...odd statements here and there. And is committed to nuking the shit out of Iran, if necessary, which is not necessarily the judgement of a sound mind (the argument goes...."Iranians are a people repressed by a small theocratic elite, yearning for freedom, but if that theocratic elite do the wrong thing, we have no problem killing millions of Iranian people to teach them a lesson").

c) it's a two horse race at the moment, between Romney and Gingrinch. The Democrats really want the latter to win, as they know he's so utterly divisive that they can easily beat him, and the polls seem to support that. People who have worked with Gingrinch despise him, no-one in the party with any clout is looking to endorse him...his surge will probably fizzle out as the party elite reluctantly rally around Romney next year.

If there is a war with Iran sometime soon how do you see that turning out? Would it be another "liberation" like Iraq where we go in and set up a new government, or would we just rape them to death with missiles and let the Iranians pick up the pieces? What do you think the chances of it becoming a nuclear conflict are?

If there is a war with Iran sometime soon how do you see that turning out? Would it be another "liberation" like Iraq where we go in and set up a new government, or would we just rape them to death with missiles and let the Iranians pick up the pieces? What do you think the chances of it becoming a nuclear conflict are?

I think that Iran being just about to get functional nukes would be the trigger for the US and others to drop the covert war charade and really go nuts. I'm not all that knowledgeable about modern nukes, but I'd think that intel that Iran actually had them would be a "now or never" kind of moment as far as starting a serious war.

Logged

Q: How regularly do you hire 8th graders?A: We have hired a number of FORMER 8th graders.

If there is a war with Iran sometime soon how do you see that turning out? Would it be another "liberation" like Iraq where we go in and set up a new government, or would we just rape them to death with missiles and let the Iranians pick up the pieces? What do you think the chances of it becoming a nuclear conflict are?

We wouldn't go in like Iraq, unless we were feeling suicidally stupid. Iran has three times the population of Iraq, a lot less ethnic/religious strife and a much stronger cultural identity. Throw in the typical Shiite opinion on martydom, and you're looking at mass resistance on a scale that would dwarf the Iraqi insurgency.

Iran's infrastructure is much stronger than Iraq's as well, which would facilitate, along with advanced Russian and Chinese arms, a much stronger pushback even before the government fell. It would be a bloodbath. While some analysts doubt their ability to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, I am of the opinion the Pentagon learnt nothing from the Millenium 2002 wargames, which had one Marine General - simulating a low-tech enemy - sink half of the Fifth Fleet.

So it'll be airstrikes and missiles and targeted attacks by Special Forces groups, aiding our proxies already on the ground in Iran, which are the MeK and Jundullah terrorist groups. It'll probably ruin Iran and leave thousands dead, but unless it can trigger an uprising, chances are the government wont be overthrown. War tends to produce a "rally around the flag" effect - look at the Blitz in the UK. Germany pounded British cities, but it didn't convince the British public to overthrow the government. And Britain did the same in return, with roughly the same effect in that sphere. Strategic bombing is good for destroying the industries which back wars, but little else.

And it won't be a nuclear war. The entire idea behind this is to overthrow the Iranian government before they have a nuclear weapon which makes such an overthrow impossible. If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it makes attempting to subvert it, either internally or by force, so much more daneous that the US will be reluctant to attempt it.

If there is a war with Iran sometime soon how do you see that turning out? Would it be another "liberation" like Iraq where we go in and set up a new government, or would we just rape them to death with missiles and let the Iranians pick up the pieces? What do you think the chances of it becoming a nuclear conflict are?

I think that Iran being just about to get functional nukes would be the trigger for the US and others to drop the covert war charade and really go nuts. I'm not all that knowledgeable about modern nukes, but I'd think that intel that Iran actually had them would be a "now or never" kind of moment as far as starting a serious war.

If they actually tested a nuke, I think it would stop the US dead in its tracks. While its unlikely they would use it in their own country to prevent falling to enemy attack, no-one wants to risk that. Also Bahrain, with its Fifth Fleet and incredibly large financial sector are well within striking distance for Iran, and much more valuable to the USA than Israel. If it was close to a nuclear weapon though, and the US had intelligence which strongly suggested it, then I think it would be go time.

Just look at US conduct with Pakistan, or North Korea. It was hostile as hell, then the weapons were dropped, and suddenly, the US was looking to to talk and negotiate.

The only complicating factor I can see is that public opinion is far more hostile to Iran than it ever was to those two countries, and could put pressure on the US to do something stupid. But then again, the political machinery of the US is such that it only responds to public pressure, as a rule, when it was intending to do something along those lines anyway. The character of the President would matter a lot. Some Christian Zionist type would be more inclined to fight it out, an Obama or Mitt Romney may be less so.

Am I right in saying generally terrorists are actually more wealthy/educated than the general population they come from? If so is there an accepted reason? Could it be that in a kind of Maslow sense terrorism fills a higher need?

Logged

If sheep entrails could in any way be related to the weather, i.e. sheep trails only originate where it rains, then you could use it as an accurate model for discerning what the weathers going to be like. Either, sheep shit makes it rain, or raining makes sheep shit. Sheep don't shit "randomly" sheep shit after they eat, it doesn't rain "randomly" it rains after water collects in the atmosphere.